Filibuster for Gun Safety

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

I do not understand what is so wrong in Dem's proposal. Why should gun buying within 72 hours is critical?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is great! Finally!

yes but why the hell did it take so long! Where was the desire to do this after 20 5/6 yr olds were gunned down? Is it just because it was a Muslim that did it? Is the magic number 50? Because it sure wasn't 30 something which was the number of folks who died from the VTech shooter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is great! Finally!

yes but why the hell did it take so long! Where was the desire to do this after 20 5/6 yr olds were gunned down? Is it just because it was a Muslim that did it? Is the magic number 50? Because it sure wasn't 30 something which was the number of folks who died from the VTech shooter.

It is crazy. What is even crazier is this is just the filibuster to try to force the Republicans hand. It may still not work (which is just mind numbing).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

When did the FL shooter buy the gun? Was it more than 72 hrs? Then it won't help. If a person is planning it for weeks/months, this wouldn't help. OTH, this guy had been investigated by the FBI several months ago and was known to be a sympathizer. So, I would say the 72 hr clause is useless if you are trying to prevent terrorists from buying guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is great! Finally!

yes but why the hell did it take so long! Where was the desire to do this after 20 5/6 yr olds were gunned down? Is it just because it was a Muslim that did it? Is the magic number 50? Because it sure wasn't 30 something which was the number of folks who died from the VTech shooter.

It is crazy. What is even crazier is this is just the filibuster to try to force the Republicans hand. It may still not work (which is just mind numbing).

I hope it does work but I have very low expectations. This country is so f-ed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

I do not understand what is so wrong in Dem's proposal. Why should gun buying within 72 hours is critical?

I suspect the Republicans' 72-hour time window is meant to mirror the current background check law, which says that FBI background checks must generally be instantaneous and cannot delay anyone from obtaining access to a gun immediately. The exception is that if the FBI says it needs extra time to complete the background check, then it can delay the purchase for up to 72 hours to do more investigation. But even if FBI cannot complete its investigation within 72 hours and block the sale, then the sale is allowed to proceed. IIRC, this is how Dylann Roof was able to get his gun ... because the FBI did not manage to turn up an older police report on Roof within the 72-hour period.

In short, Republicans in Congress want the 72-hour time limit because then they can claim that they did not make the gun purchase process any longer than it already is now, so they cannot be criticized by Tea Party challengers as doing anything to weaken "gun rights."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

When did the FL shooter buy the gun? Was it more than 72 hrs? Then it won't help. If a person is planning it for weeks/months, this wouldn't help. OTH, this guy had been investigated by the FBI several months ago and was known to be a sympathizer. So, I would say the 72 hr clause is useless if you are trying to prevent terrorists from buying guns.

I think the sentence you highlighted could be phrased better: "But if the government cannot show within 72 hours that the individual is plotting terrorism, the individual gets the gun." It's not saying that the plotting is within 72 hours; it's saying the government only has 72 hours to prove plotting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

First PP who asked the question here, and this is very helpful. Thanks. The Politico article was worse than unhelpful in explaining this.

It seems like there should be some compromise possible here. The obvious one would be to put a cap on the amount of time the DOJ has to come up with its "preponderance of evidence" in a court challenge. You could imagine ultimately creating a "no buy" list that requires a much higher standard of evidence to get on, but being on that list means it's easy for DOJ to prove you shouldn't get a gun. There could be a secondary "watch list" that's a bit more gray, and the restrictions would accordingly be more lax.

FWIW, it seems to me that Mateen would probably end up on the gray list, but this type of legislation is still valuable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

When did the FL shooter buy the gun? Was it more than 72 hrs? Then it won't help. If a person is planning it for weeks/months, this wouldn't help. OTH, this guy had been investigated by the FBI several months ago and was known to be a sympathizer. So, I would say the 72 hr clause is useless if you are trying to prevent terrorists from buying guns.

I think the sentence you highlighted could be phrased better: "But if the government cannot show within 72 hours that the individual is plotting terrorism, the individual gets the gun." It's not saying that the plotting is within 72 hours; it's saying the government only has 72 hours to prove plotting.

As we all know, wording is critical, like the controversy around the wording of the 2nd amendment. I do hope they get it straight.

[Anonymous]

Woohoo! Mark Warner joined the filibuster! He is on now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

I do not understand what is so wrong in Dem's proposal. Why should gun buying within 72 hours is critical?

Because the democrat proposal denies due process, your fifth amendment right. It also doesn't define criteria for what puts you on the list other than up to AG and it doesn't define how to get off. The republicans are simply asking the 5th amendment rights are not infringe on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

I do not understand what is so wrong in Dem's proposal. Why should gun buying within 72 hours is critical?

Because the democrat proposal denies due process, your fifth amendment right. It also doesn't define criteria for what puts you on the list other than up to AG and it doesn't define how to get off. The republicans are simply asking the 5th amendment rights are not infringe on.

No, there is no violation of Due Process. Anyone who is dangerous enough to get put on the no-fly list, and who wants to challenge that designation, has the right to go to a court of law to make his case. Indeed, when they go to court, the burden is on the AG to prove a reasonable belief that the gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism. The gun buyer doesn't have to offer any proof at all. All he has to do is ask for a court hearing, and that forces the government to come forward with proof. No loss of Due Process at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

I do not understand what is so wrong in Dem's proposal. Why should gun buying within 72 hours is critical?

Because the democrat proposal denies due process, your fifth amendment right. It also doesn't define criteria for what puts you on the list other than up to AG and it doesn't define how to get off. The republicans are simply asking the 5th amendment rights are not infringe on.

No, there is no violation of Due Process. Anyone who is dangerous enough to get put on the no-fly list, and who wants to challenge that designation, has the right to go to a court of law to make his case. Indeed, when they go to court, the burden is on the AG to prove a reasonable belief that the gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism. The gun buyer doesn't have to offer any proof at all. All he has to do is ask for a court hearing, and that forces the government to come forward with proof. No loss of Due Process at all.

Agree. The due process argument is a red herring. I heard Senator Murphy say that 90%(!) of the people on the terrorist watch list have purchased guns. That is scary. This is just about the NRA and the fact that they want everyone to have access to guns. Perhaps blocking people on the terrorist watchlist would be blocking some of their best customers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

I do not understand what is so wrong in Dem's proposal. Why should gun buying within 72 hours is critical?

Because the democrat proposal denies due process, your fifth amendment right. It also doesn't define criteria for what puts you on the list other than up to AG and it doesn't define how to get off. The republicans are simply asking the 5th amendment rights are not infringe on.

No, there is no violation of Due Process. Anyone who is dangerous enough to get put on the no-fly list, and who wants to challenge that designation, has the right to go to a court of law to make his case. Indeed, when they go to court, the burden is on the AG to prove a reasonable belief that the gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism. The gun buyer doesn't have to offer any proof at all. All he has to do is ask for a court hearing, and that forces the government to come forward with proof. No loss of Due Process at all.

Agree. The due process argument is a red herring. I heard Senator Murphy say that 90%(!) of the people on the terrorist watch list have purchased guns. That is scary. This is just about the NRA and the fact that they want everyone to have access to guns. Perhaps blocking people on the terrorist watchlist would be blocking some of their best customers.

Sorry - I stated that incorrectly. More than 90% of the people on the terrorist watchlist who attempted to purchase a gun were successful. Not more than 90% of the people on the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

I do not understand what is so wrong in Dem's proposal. Why should gun buying within 72 hours is critical?

Because the democrat proposal denies due process, your fifth amendment right. It also doesn't define criteria for what puts you on the list other than up to AG and it doesn't define how to get off. The republicans are simply asking the 5th amendment rights are not infringe on.

No, there is no violation of Due Process. Anyone who is dangerous enough to get put on the no-fly list, and who wants to challenge that designation, has the right to go to a court of law to make his case. Indeed, when they go to court, the burden is on the AG to prove a reasonable belief that the gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism. The gun buyer doesn't have to offer any proof at all. All he has to do is ask for a court hearing, and that forces the government to come forward with proof. No loss of Due Process at all.

Lol remember that time the late Senator Ted Kennedy was added to the no-fly list and it took him almost 3 years to get removed? While he was an acting, famous senator? Yet I am soooo sure it will just be an absolute breeze to get removed from the list if you shouldn't have been added in the first place, and Democrats will definitely not use the list as a pretext to disarm legal gunowners.

Like when DC said "sure, you can have a gun for protection, as long as you can give us a good reason." Well, just about nothing satisfied DC's "good reason" test, which is still tying up the courts. Good thing we don't place similar qualifiers on other constitutional rights!